An evaluation report by the Administration of the Chamber of Deputies has concluded that Luxembourg’s parliamentary transparency register falls short of its intended goals and requires improvement.
Introduced relatively recently to provide public insight into interactions between lawmakers and stakeholders, the register currently lacks the rigor applied to government members.
The discrepancies came to light when former Minister Sam Tanson of the Green Party (Déi Gréng) transitioned from government to parliament and noted stricter transparency rules for ministers. While government officials must disclose detailed records of lobbyist meetings, MPs face less stringent requirements. In response, Tanson submitted a resolution demanding a review – a move now validated by the report’s findings.
According to Tanson, the existing system fails as a true “meetings register,” leaving the public unable to track which MPs engaged with lobbyists or interest groups on legislative matters. The European Commission echoed concerns in a recent rule-of-law report. Additionally, the register has been criticised for its shortcomings in accessibility to citizens.
As president of the parliamentary committee on regulations, Tanson confirmed plans to align the MPs’ transparency standards with those of government members. Future meetings between lawmakers and lobbyists will be published online, including dates and discussion topics, ensuring full traceability for the public.
But why does a three-year-old register already need reform in the first place?
Tanson explained that while still serving in government during the register’s creation, she was later informed that the initial proposal – drafted by the parliamentary regulatory committee – faced delays after “one of the parliamentary groups” sought a legal review. This assessment raised constitutional concerns, ultimately leading to a scaled-back version of the original plan.
Tanson suggested that the Christian Social People’s Party (CSV) was “allegedly” behind the request for legal scrutiny, though she emphasised she had no direct involvement at the time.
However, she remains optimistic about reforms, citing the government register’s success and widespread party-level transparency practices as reasons for greater political willingness now.
Progress appears imminent: Tanson described early talks with the Conference of Presidents as “constructive,” though a formalised text must still be negotiated among parties. If consensus is reached swiftly, she believes the adapted register could take effect by year’s end.
